Watching your coverage on election night, my partner and I were very disappointed to see your main expert panel (chaired by Peter Mansbridge) comprised completely of the traditional majority: middle-aged white men (who, we also noted, persisted in entertaining each other with insiders' political puns).

No women, no cultural or age diversity (you needed to wait for shorter segments for those perspectives). We're not saying that CBC is alert to the issue of diversity as a whole. But if you want to do your bit to foster awareness and participation across the country, your core coverage should address people's complaints about political representation, not reinforce the old norms.

I thought that the online forum was a great idea. Citizens were engaged with one another without the distance problem. I enjoyed myself greatly and learned alot about my fellow Canadians, as well as myself.

I was very happy with the CBC coverage. I was lucky enough to participate in the "your turn" segment by asking a question of Jack Layton, which he was unwilling/unable to directly answer.

Thankyou to Peter Mansbridge for representing me and attempting to squeeze an answer out of Mr. Layton.

It's unfortunate that people who blindly believe the CBC has a "liberal agenda" would think I'm a CBC shill because of my reference to the CBC website in my quesetion, but I noticed that at cwcwatch.ca (a site devoted to critisizing the CBC. It's simply not true.

I personally believed that the CBC made extra attempt to be nice to the Conservatives this time around, possibly due to baseless complaints from the right of a "liberal" CBC filter/agenda.

Ask yourselves, wasn't it odd that the CBC ignored a story about Stephen Harper decided to stop answering media questions a couple days before the election? For a guy running on transparency and accountability, I would have thought that was a story! Especially since it was noted by reporters and then the decision was reversed after a French reporter was "grabbed from behind" by a Harper campaign worker!

I guess the CBC now has a rightwing bias! :)

I would like to be able to forward some of the web post election stats and comments to friends/snowbirds. I do not see the feature..." forward this article to a friend."

My technical expertise is minimal but would like to know how to keep my friends informed, especially those who cared enough to vote before they left home.

Anna C.

Two things stood out for me in your election coverage. 1: I thought that Peter Mansbridge handled Stephen Harper with "kid gloves", compared to his questioning of Jack Layton; I did not see the interview with Paul Martin due to my schedule. 2: I thought that there was little or no mention of someone who has been and continues to be a major influence on Stephen Harper; that is, Tom Flanagan, who was Harper's chief of staff during the election. Even if that name had been made known more so, people could have done their own research. I know I did, and read some articles about Tom Flanagan. I think Canadians should be aware of major influences on their political leaders. I believe that you let Canadians down on this count.

Overall,the media did a fine job. I am not sure that the nation's citizenry did as well. Perhaps there is too much reliance on the media to spell out platforms, pros and cons, and too much of a tendency to plunk ourselves down in front of the tube, put minds into neutral, and simply absorb. And too little effort put into actively digging out the facts, separating the wheat from the chaff. Take Politics 101, get to all-candidates meetings, adopt a proactive posture on what you need. Make an informed choice, don't just get handed a ready-made option. The media is part of it, to be sure, but there is much more out there. Go get it!

Dear Mr. Burman, I am studying for my doctorate at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. As a Canadian living abroad (and casting a vote across the Atlantic), I have depended on the online coverage of the election, as opposed to my usual 'multi-media' intake of television, radio, newspapers, etc. I have found that the news stories posted on CBC.ca are mere statements of fact (he said this, she did that, this policy was announced), and that very little analysis of what these things actually mean to Canadians is given.

The CBC.ca 'Indepth' pages seem to be merely an elaborated statement of the facts, and the 'Analysis & Veiwpoint' pages a collection of partisan opinions. Why do we never hear about the effects of NAFTA since its implementation (not about the state of the GDP, but its effect on the general public) and question its appropriateness for Canada? Why is there no discussion of the fact that the decisions of Canada's parliament can be, and have been, vetoed by non-elected international organizations like NAFTA and the WTO? It is a sad state of affairs when I must turn to books to have any meaningful interpretation of current events (most recently Canadian Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude, Dude").

I believe the CBC genuinely believes it is the protector of honest journalism in Canada, and its bare-bones state-the-facts-only reporting supports this claim. However, I would like to see the CBC be the defender of Canada, and especially the Canadian people. I urge you to look behind the facts and give an honest opinion of their consequences, to keep the government honest (why not have a permanent and continuously updated list of election promises and their status), to focus not only on the day-to-day happenings, but the bigger picture, and to revisit and reanalyze events in the past that are affecting us now.

That’s my two cents worth.

John MacKay

I found the CBC coverage this election much better than in 2004, however I don't believe that reporters and jounalists on public TV and radio should be able to use their political bias to influence voters. The Liberal bias, although less this time than last, was still very obvious. All national political partys that run candidates in every Riding across the country should be included in the leaders debates. By excluding Jim Harris of the Green Party, the CBC denied equal opportunity and may well have influenced the vote. The CBC should take responsibility to uphold democracy. It seems remarkable that the Bloc, which no-one outside of Quebec is able to vote for, is included in all 4 debates but the Green Party, which enjoys wide-based support from every corner of the country, is excluded from all of them. I thought that "Your Turn" with Peter Mansbridge was well done and at least Jim Harris was able to speak to some of the issues then. Election night was exciting and the results came in amazingly fast. Seeing Green leading in this Riding was certainly the highlight of the night!

Reality Check was a really fantastic feature. It is the opinion of this Canadian youth that all media coverage would do well to emulate its focus on analysis: this is what the media has the potential to do best.

I REALLY liked Reality Check-we need more of this to hold the parties accountable. I saw all of the debates. I would have preferred more "debate", rather than Q&A. As it was, lots of the questions were dodged & we got party spin instead. The Green Party should have been included. I always enjoy Cross Country Check-up; heard most of the show on the 22nd. I LOVE Rick Mercer & was glad he was a part of the "pre-game show". Who says politics can't be funny too? It's definitely absurd.... The election night coverage was good. On satellite, we skipped between several CBC stations to follow various ridings around the country. I enjoyed George S.'s segments; I'm sure he was included to entice a younger audience. Looking at politics from a different slant can't hurt the rest of us either! (What I was happiest about this time is that my 19 y/o daughter actually cast a vote - her first, although she could have voted last time.)The "Your Turn" segments were GREAT. Unfortunately I only heard three of them, more re-broadcasts would have been good. I saw one or two Taxi Chats, which I thought were so-so & one of the speed dating segments, which I liked. I think it would be good to see more of the local candidates - maybe some coverage of local forums? Not just high-profile ridings or candidates either. This would probably also be very illuminating for the party brass. In our local forum, the NDP & Green candidates both spouted constant anti-business, anti-globalization garbage & really did not have any grasp of issues. This created quite a dilemma for a left-leaning voter who did not want to vote Liberal. In the end, I had to ignore the local level & go with my gut on what I had seen, heard & read on the CBC about the parties on the national level.

Reality Check was a really fantastic feature. It is the opinion of this Canadian youth that all media coverage would do well to emulate its focus on analysis: this is what the media has the potential to do best.

I nearly fell of my stool laughing when I read the comments from Mona Joyce. My parents, though avid CBC listeners, were always berating the station for its left leanings. I've heard Michael Corren do the same. Now he's right wing. Imagine my surprise when I learned the CBC is actually a right wing supporter of facists regimes. Boy have I ever been out of the loop. I listened to the CBC coverage throughout the election and found it fair and balanced. There were spokespeople from all the political parties. What planet is she from?

Like many Canadians on election night, our household consideration as to which television network (CBC or CTV) to watch, was based on "checking them out" early in their evening programming starts. Our decision was made when, in trying CBC-TV first we witnessed the crass and insulting-to-the-occasion antics of the Mercer fellow who, for some unknown reason was used to usher in CBC-TV's election results' coverage. Needless to say, as with a great many other Canadians I'm sure, we quickly turned to CTV-TV for what turned out to be responsible and mature coverage for the rest of the night's election coverage. We wonder whether CBC is aware of Mr. Mercer's irrelevance and hardly entertaining antics. CBC won't get audience growth with this type of insultingly juvenile programming. The electorate hardly deserved such trash on election night, of all times, when important decions on the future of Canada were being made.

I was impressed with the creativity evident in this year’s election coverage, both in the CBC and in the guests on the shows.

joyed the speed-dating tete-a-tetes with the party strategists, although more for the insights they provided into the strength and depth of voter concerns rather than the parties’ policies.

A "man in the street" made me chuckle when he likened the election results for the Liberals to a "time out", the control technique used by Supernanny on wilful children who break the house rules.

Especially, I was pleasantly surprised by the charming classically trained Indian astrologer who came to the set on Sunday, and whose predictions seemed to be considerably more trustworthy than those of the pollsters.

I wonder if in future years you might build on the popularity of Donald Trump’s and Martha Stewart’s “Apprentice” TV programs and figure out a way to test the wits of the party leaders by setting up a near-impossible task which must be completed in less than a day. If our potential future leaders so dared to play, such a game would provide some insight into how relatively well they might handle unexpected problems under pressure.

Instead of The Donald and Martha, the judges in our event could be drawn from those voters still without a date.

Re voter turnout in this recent election. Yes it was good to see the increase - 66% is better than 60% but are we increasing voter numbers at the expense of honesty? My concern is regarding the letters to the editor I've seen in National Post etc. regarding polling stations permitting people to vote who did not have ID. Some scrutineers reported watching dozens of people in their particular pole being allowed to vote though they did not have any ID. I also remember a CBC radio program where a gentleman who was concerned about that same issue during our previous election and was writing a story about it, who actually tried to vote twice and was successful. Obviously there is room for a lot of abuse in a system that allows this practice. Hey this is maybe not in the flow of your inquiry but I do welcome feedback. Yes I appreciated CBC radio election coverage for the most part. Your coverage seemed fair and not seriously biased either way!

CBC should be ashamed of itself. To pretend to have fairly covered this election is a total mockery of our democracy. It was you and the other mainstream media that determined which party was heard and which party was ignored.

It was CBC that continually left out all of the smaller parties in favour of the top four choices. Canadians were surprised and angered to find out that there were many other alternative voices and federally recognised parties out there, that they never even knew existed because you at CBC, had determined that we did not count.

How dare you profess to be our broadcasting corporation when it has become clearer in this election that you are corporate controlled and will only cover the mainstream parties. Smaller parties would not be in existance if people were satisfied with the mainstream choices that have been given to them. The fact that you purposely left out the smaller parties clearly shows that you do not represent all Canadians.

The CBC chose to ignore the electoral broadcasting regulations that clearly state the opposition candidates must be given adequate covereage. This did not happen.

What a refreshing idea. The CBC clearly lead the way for viewers/listeners to interact on a number of different levels to hear/see the relevance of Canadian politics within their own lives. The CBC has performed this public service and is a benchmark of exellence in broadcasting for doing so. It is for the above reason that so many have come to rely and depend on CBC Radio/Television for information upon which to rely in making thier decision in thier live and to express it in such decisions such as thier vote in this, our democracy.

The coverage on election night was great but I found the election coverage prior to that night be mired in the absurd. The continuous harping on the stupid 'ad' that never appeared and dumb remarks from people who were not even candidates left me wondering if the reporters even listened to the platforms. I would have liked more interviews with knowlegable candidates from all parties who would enlighten me on their party's position. I did find the Leaders Debate better this time but at other times the continuous use of 3 spin doctors yelling over each other did nothing to help my understanding. Nor did the 'speed dating'. The questions were so superficial as to be ridiculous. Asking the public for their questions and getting answers for the most common ones would be more informative. In conclusion I feel there are two things that is destroying the public interest in politics; i)the demeaning way in which politians themselves address each other and accusations they hurl back and forth, ii)and the constant outrageous prattle the press offers as NEWS. Rick Mercer is a good break and informative in a humourous way. We do not need to be fed a constant diet of trite phrases, snappy sound bites or usless stories over and over again. We need to be informed. We need to be shown some respect!

CBC is on the right track - more content, less flash. I ask that you take a look at some of the things that CPAC has been doing, especially interviews on the street based on 'pop quiz' questions.

I really appreciate being able to download an MP3 of a program I missed but wanted to hear. The most recent example was the daytime Cross Country Checkup special on 24 January. I listened to it that evening and was glad I did not miss hearing a great show.

It would be a good thing to be able to download an mpg and watch a missed program. I happen to use Windows XP Media Edition, so I can record Don Newman's Politics broadcast and watch it later.

Another thing I would like to do is listen to an audio feed from CBC-TV or Newsworld as I am driving. Maybe you could get the CRTC to provide some ordinary FM channels to provide audio.

I have one other suggestion. Often, I see representatives of polling firms interviewed to discuss 'trends' and so forth. These people are never asked to declare the fact that they have 'baggage'. Many have long former associations with one particular party. Their interpretations, and in fact the construction and sequence of questions that so influence results, are no doubt affected by past activity. They should be so identified, much like is done on business report programs, where analysts are asked to declare whether the stocks of any of the companies discussed are owned or marketed by the firm of the analyst. I think this is a more important alert to the viewer than the details of polling dates, the size of the sample and the accepted 19 out of 20 times accuracy. All in all, good job CBC, and keep it up.

Reality Check and Courting the undecided were the best - Also anything on CBC Radio- I agree with previous scribes that you have managed to build programming especially on CBC Radio after that brief Hiatus (I REALLY MISSED CBC) - The younger cast members are adding a new flair so that my kids are even listening at times Cheers

I thought that the best thing you did was the Your Turn sessions with each of the leaders. It gave a real opportunity to hear the views of each one. I much prefer this to the, now obligatory, debates. I have been watching debates between candidates since the very first Nixon Kennedy Debate back in the 1960 US election and have found them more and more useless over time. Each candidate is so rehearsed now that all one is looking for is for one of the candidates to come "off message". But the individual Your Turn sessions allowed a questioner (or Peter Mansbridge) to follow up if a person really didn't answer a question...and these moments were very instructive.

What I especially did not like about the CBC coverage of this election was the constant running and re-running of the Liberal ad on the military...one that they had decided NOT to use. That they thought this kind of advertising worth making in the first place was BAD. BUT, they did have the good sense to pull it. That you decided to show it almost constantly was wrong. I believe you did so because it was a "good story" but I am very afraid that many people were mislead into thinking that the Liberals had actually RUN the ad and that this influenced their vote. The CBC does not have to stoop to these kind of FOX News tactics to get viewers.

Electoral health and national unity depend on how we reform our regionally divisive voting system. That Peter Mansbridge engaged Hugh Segal and Ed Broadbent on this critical but difficult issue was for me the high point of the entire election. Thank you for that. I look forward to further thoughtful coverage of this newly hot issue.

I agree with the idea of giving the Green Party debate time. They are a national part that 1 in 20 voters supported despite the lack of coverage and attention. Perhaps it would be a worthy journalistic enquiry to explore both proportational representation and how a party can garner this level of support without a huge media campaign or following.

Little is made of the fact that voters were not just electing a MP but also making financial commitments to the parties they voted for. My vote gave $1.75 per year to help build the Green Party. I wonder what the Independant MP makes of the fact that his fellow candidates' votes help secure financing to contest the riding in the next election? His success results in no additional resources for his re-election. Obviously the Election Act was written for the parties and not for the candidates.

I have one major concern regarding analytical process involving media coverage, and it's purpose. Media being made up of people with independant views it is quite obvious reporters or journalists being human, will analyze what they are exposed to through emotional eyes of personal bias. How do internal processes within for example CBC cope with this intrinsic human folly.

Media in past was a socializing tool used by every democratic government to manipulate minds of people into accepting political social/economic dictates of powers that be. CBC including all other forms of media still adhere to these practices, since structures dictating media presentation is politically controlled behind closed doors. Only the well educated adult with life experience learns that.

I question if media representation can be untainted and not controlled when it involves social status and financial security that goes with for those in political power. I for one do not envy position of CBC or any media provider in dealing with confines provided them, and government as principle funding agent. Indeed I do understand your delicate situation involving CBC survival.

My father Mr. Erwin Keller - born Partisch, in the middle fifties worked for CBC as a German speaking announcer through references provided by Austria's RWR where his duties where that of a national radio producer. I remeber his stories very well, though no names.

There is not alot to comment now that it is over and its great that the Liberals will have some time to regather. what I find disgusting is that Harper chose to start his campaign with a divisive issue of revisiting the same-sex marriage issue, in order to divide the minorities that had their Equal Rights and Freedoms respected by all parties except the Conservatives. Harper also played on the rest of the minorities religious beliefs to divide people even more, all for his own game. i wouldn't exactly call Harper a leader when he resort to these kinds of practices. pitting family member against family member. Which leaves the question we all know the answer to .Who is he catering to? the US Right Wing. there is no other reason to revisit the issue.

The "speed dating" concept was very engaging and a fun way to engage younger people who are more aware of the original. The "reality check" was interesting as well as it keeps the politicians feet to the fire. It's the youth that needs capturing as they're the ones with the low engagement (actual voters) but you seem to be on the right track. Good Luck!

if there is a another reason Harper won this election ,is that CBC and CTV were in full support of Harper . I cannot beleive how lucky he was . he could say nothing wrong or do no wrong because, even if he would have , cbc and ctv would not have reported it anyway . so Harper owes both televison stations a big thank you . if only u could have been that fair with the liberals , bloq and ndp . but then again they r not paying your salaries now are they ??

I commend the CBC for its coverage of the 2006 campaign, both on the TV and radio networks. I particularly appreciated the way in which you downplayed your coverage of opinion polls, providing a summing up of poll results instead of constantly making them the lead item of the news, as the media are wont to do. "Reality Check" provided a useful service for viewers and the "Our Turn" interviews with the leaders were invaluable.

I wasn't enamoured of all of the new features. "The Insider" diary was not particularly insightful and the taxi driver segments were rather frivolous. On the other hand, I realize that you need to connect with different parts of a highly diverse viewing and listening audience--case in point, George S. and his hip-and-happening style of discourse, which I presume is aimed at young viewers with Attention Deficit Disorder. Still, this 43-year-old fogey was pleasantly surprised by the "speed dating" feature!

My only real complaint has to do with CBC-TV's election night coverage itself, the format of which compared unfavourably to that of past Federal elections. For most of the evening, riding results were reported in a narrow band on the right-hand side of the screen. Being squeezed into such a confined space, the text was too small to be easily read. And crucial information was missing, most notably the number of polls reporting. In the past, the results of individual ridings were intermittently projected onto the full TV screen. Also, I waited in vain for tables showing the state of the parties in particular provinces and regions. There were some graphics on this, but noticeably fewer than in past years. I was particularly disappointed by the limited information provided about Sask. and Manitoba. The interesting race in Churchill, Manitoba received an early mention, but was then ignored for the rest of the evening. Still, an excellent job on the whole.

The CBC is still the touchstone for my television and online information, but I too noticed a subtle change in slant on many programs: George Stroumboulopoulos interviewing election 'expert' Andrew Coyne (thinly disguised right-wing apologist) or even the relating of the day's activities, where etiquette would suggest you address Martin/Liberals first but Harper/Conservatives always headlined which, in turn, suggested them as the government (in waiting). I suppose the media (CBC included) sees itself in the watchdog role and can now adjust from the soft ride they gave Harper in the campaign to the usual criticism levelled at a governing party. That said, the new programs were welcolmed attempts to enfranchise more voices.

I commend your efforts to bring more meaningful and insightful coverage of the Canadian political landscape, and to re-connect with issues that we want to think about. I've noticed a trend, however, in media of using the average Joe interview clips - letting a few "average" Canadians opinionate and react to a few issues on camera. I know it's meant to give the personal viewpoint to a story but often I find it trite and shallow because these clips are far too short. The result is really not any information I find valuable.

Meanwhile, your Reality Check feature was incredibly useful and contained all sorts of facts and information I used to form my own opinions on issues. This was excellent! It cut right to the chase and removed all the spin and marketing shite that blankets the dribble coming out of politicians' mouths.

This is the kind of truthful, fact-finding information that is completely lacking in the media. Please provide more of it! Lots lots more!

While I am not a great fan of CBC news coverage I have been somewhat impressed by a seemingly genuine effort to improve and balance your coverage. The election coverage was an example of this, a much better job. However as a westerner I must chide you for Peter Mansbridges report of injured Canadian soldiers returning home (1/25/06). Home to Canada, and to a local hospital! Could you not say Edmonton, and The University Of Alberta Hospital? While this may seem a small thing and perhaps we westerners are too thin skinned it is this type of offhanded comment that is a source of irritant and leads to claims of bias about your service. The National news should be just that and reflect the whole country.

May I refer to Elena of Montreal and her comment about Peter Mansbridge interviewing Jack Layton on "Your Turn". Mr. Mansbridge said the Gomery report had exonerated Mr. Martin and his Cabinet and yet Mr. Layton continued to accuse Mr. Martin and his Government of being corrupt. Mr. Mansbridge asked what proof did Mr. Layton have of this corruption. When Mr. Layton skirted the question Mr. Mansbridge asked again but again Mr. Layton blustered and then filled the airwaves with his party's line and so no answer was forthcoming. To me this is Libel. We need more journalists like Mr. Mansbridge. The very first rule of taking over a country is to control the media and then that is the end of freedom. Anything can be done in secret and no questions asked. Accountability is secured by honest journalism.

Ban publication of all polls from the date the Writ is dropped until the last polling station closes on election day. The election is not supposed to be about polls as though we were all sitting in front of a TV watching a horse race. The election is supposed to be about different groups with different proposals. The polls are laughably wrong anyhow (the margin of error always converts them to the meaningless in a close race, and everyone knows the general drift of things in a race that is not close). The pollsters, to a degree, are stealing our election "space" and stealing our telephone access (is there anyplace in Canda where you do not fear to answer the phone between 4 and 7 pm weekdays because it will surely be a solicitation. And now the do not call list will be a do not , do not call list for pollsters, among a few other time thieves. Ban polls from the election space.

I thought the CBC coverage of the Election was great, and it was funny.

can you please tell who was the secret reporter, for the election coverage, every night on the cbc news? Your reply appreciated.

hk

In an earlier email comment on this web site I indicated a Harper & Tories victory which will certainly be good for this beautiful country. They will seek to take a serious view on same sex marriages and reduce gun crimes.Just because a criminal feels he is a Canadian citizen should not entitle him to kill others with guns; they too must be deported, and if women stop giving birth because of same sex marriages what will happen to the human race and us Canadians.Will the USA and Canada be the next Sodom and Gomorrah.Kudos to Harper and Tories. Let them rule this land for the next four years. I wish this GREAT COUNTRY success.

Thanks for the fine job of keeping us informed down here where Canada's election link on www.msnbc.com was tucked away halfway down the page and Judge Alito's confirmation was the big news Tuesday morning, 24-Jan-06. Apparently CBC's popularity, was so great that the web servers were swamped. Our only opportunity to watch CBC news was via the live video streaming and it took until 8:45 MST before we were able to get it. Even the audio streaming was jammed. Unfortunately, there wasn't a special shortwave broadcast or we would have tuned in there. You might consider that for next time around. Again, thanks from South Calgary Center-North, Colorado!

I thought CBC's radio coverage was excellent, from Ontario phone-in to cross country check up, the issues were debated intelligently and thoroughly. I thoroughly enjoyed The House broadcast on the weekend before the election - Anthony Germain's interview with Steven Harper made a difference to my vote. Most of all I loved the As It Happens panel on election evening. Please keep up the good work!

CBC tv was our preferred election night coverage, the graphics were less busy and Peter Mansbridge calmer and more trustworthy than the other networks (which we flipped to nevertheless). Wendy Mesley was also excellent, but despite some input from Ian Hanomansing, there was a dearth of visible minority representation which could have been more interesting than a bunch of middle aged white guys. The Rick Mercer Report's election editions were excellent, funny but insightful.

Three specific things that could be improved for the CBC TV coverage next time: - the side-bar that repeated regional results could usefully feature some key national ridings of interest. - please add information on how many ridings are in each province. Despite showing the number of polls where the party was in the lead and elected (a graphic we enjoyed), we needed to know how many of the total number of seats in each province were decided. None of the networks showed this information and we had to use the internet as a backgounder. - more numerical comparisons of the change in votes per riding. Thanks so much, Wendy

Who wrote the "Campaign Confidential" articles? I enjoyed them all.

Although I could not vote due to residency restrictions,I have followed the campaign intently. I was VERY pleased with the live feed on the internet.I watched until Peter Mansbridge signed off;(what a pro he is!). Our U S Cable company has no Canadian content anymore.We used to get Newsworld but no longer. Thank you very much.

Canadians living overseas or over the border should be allowed to vote. Currently, you can only vote if you work for a govt agency or are posted overseas with the army/air force, or if you left Canada less than 5 years ago. Cosmopolitan Canadians were excluded from this election and we might have changed the outcome. Best regards, Shauna www.ShaunaSinghBaldwin.com

Thanks to your presenters, they did an excellent, even Don Cherrie, LOL! I did find some to the displayed stats confusing, particular the right sidebar that was so small it was impossible at times to read it. As well the quick, flash scrolling at the bottom of the screen added nothing to the quality and was just a destraction for me. Peter Mansfield as host was abosolutly excellent, as he always is on the nightly news. Thanks for a good analysis throughout, along with the fair and objective reporting. Bill C.

A good start that was born out in my impressions of your coverage in all three media. Historically our politics grew out of the battlefield struggles for control of the Crown. We've now reached the somewhat less violent model of the football field struggle for turf. But we've still got a ways to go the citizens' interest in a more consensual, issues based approach ahead of strategy and tactics. While such change must come from the politicians and leaders themselves, the media can facilitate this evolution by highlighting/reinforcing it whenever it occurs--which is what you're doing.

Hello, Thank you for your insights into the planning behind the CBC. I would like to suggest that also the highly talented and passionate journalists and presenters that have worked on the election campaign should also receive much credit for their tremendous efforts these past weeks! In particular, Rex Murphy is for me the most important and inspiring of these. I believe that his programs are an important component of our Canadian version of the democratic process. He succeeds in uniting the country every weekend in a reasoned, articulate, open-minded and in-depth discussion of the relevant issues. And in so doing, we the listeners and participants are introduced to the considered opinions and intelligent contributions of so many of our fellow countrymen, from both ordinary and extraordinary walks in life.

Give him a raise... or else send him on a beach holiday in Newfoundland, whichever he prefers!

As president of the Canadian Etnic Journalists' and Writers' Club, I haven't so far noted comment on the way the "ethnic" vote went but it would seem to me with the heavy pro-Liberal and NDP voting in urban areas, where the greatest concentrations of ethnic minorities are located that in spite of Mr. Harper's overtures to them, he garnered few votes from them Memories run deep and the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives had until the reent campaign little regard for the national policy of Mulciculturalism. I'd be interested in hearing other peples' views. Thank you, Ben Viccari

We need fewer "Commentators" who sit at tables with other "commentators", each of whom has a clear party connection who use the time to debate each other. While the media will spend endless time on scandals, I have never seen good coverage of what a particular piece of legislation actually means.

Mr. Burman, I commend you and your team at the CBC for a well organized and entertaining and enlightening approach to the election coverage. From the set design and layout, to the comentators and pundits like Ron Mclean, Don Cherry, Rick Mercer, Rex Murphy, and of course the hosts. All giving their personal take on what was happening. I knew it was going to be a close election race to the finish so the lead up to election night was similar to waiting to watch a good hockey game. I made sure the TV was mine from 8:00pm onward. And I wasn't disappointed. Waiting for polls to close and simply talk and rehash old news of the campaign is old and actually boring. Im glad you took the initiative to engage intelligent folk outside of the political arena to take part. Such as George Stroumboulopoulos and his interviews with people at the coffee house setup and their view of things. Keep the set, i have a feeling you'll be needing it again before too long. It was a great race, thanks for making it more than the usual.

Dear Mr. Burman and CBC staff, just a note to tell you thank you for your efforts during this campaign. As usual, CBC did what I expected in political coverage: you gave as complete coverage as was possible. I teach three university classes that have nothing to do with politics, but in each course, the students were aware how politics extends to their daily lives. When asked where they get their information on deciding how to vote, the students consistently told me that they turn to CBC -- and in particular, CBC.CA-- for information on the parties, and the election process.

Let's hope the new government doesn't get any stupid ideas about our public broadcaster, and instead decides to dedicate more funds to ensuring we have at least one institution that we trust.

With good wishes, DeNel Rehberg Sedo, PhD

Although taxi chat seemed like a good idea, the result was much, much less than spectacular. I think the "speed-dating" idea was a much better idea along the same lines. I suggest not continuing taxi chat.

Hello Mr.Burman,

For the past four years I've felt that the CBC is waking up like Rip Van Winkle, or that I'm Rip Van Winkle waking up to CBC!

You people have made truly amazing advances in news presentations, documentaries, reasoning power and relevance. You are now almost absolutely "spot on!" most of the time. When you're not on, neither am I.

Thank you on behalf of all Canadians, especially the ones I care about.

Geoff Butler
Inner City Alive

I so enjoyed the online features this year! You have no idea how often I would listen to a speech, or a sound bite and then go to "Reality Check".I don't have instant access to economists, legal advisors, or historians. Thank you for bringing them to me. "Courting the Undecided" was a delight, please do this again. The only change I'd make would be to give the citizens more time to question the party reps. All in all, well done.

One quick comment/ request with regard to the leadership debates. This election I missed both english debates due to my workschedule (nightshifts) so I watched the french one instead but I found the "voice over" translations very distracting. Would useing subtitles with the translation be considered at any time? Overall I thorougly enjoyed all aspects of the election coverage with regards karel, Willaert.

I had just turned 18 roughly two months ago and I found that not many of my peers were voting in the last municipal election in Vancouver. I think that the media and the government really need to start targeting young voters otherwise my generation will be a silent one for the years to come...

A lot of people in Canada don't realize how many people in Canada actually vote. The 66% vote shows that Canadians do care about their government. The elected now have a tough job ahead of them. They need to make a minority government work. Canadians voted to get the best people into Parliment. Let's hope the elected understand that Canadians want them to work together for Canada, not their individual parties. I believe they all understand an election before four years have passed is not an acceptable option.

What a complete and discusting joke this whole campaign,coverage and turnout this whole thing was. I couldn't believe what I heard. Where do you find the people for your coverage? I drive a truck. I couldn't believe last night I actually heard one lady say that Paul was a great man and balanced our budgets? What the hell is wrong with her? let's look back at the coffer he inherited. Mulroney brings in GST and says that the national debt would be eliminated in 10 to 15 years. Liberals take over and say they would get rid of GST. Not only did they not get rid of it. They increased it and soaked us for over a decade. and people forget this? In fact the debt was 1/2 trillion in 90 and what is it today? Well I payed my share to the tune of almost 45,000 dollars in GST dollars in the last 15 year with a house,cars food and clothing, about three times what the individual amount owed according to experts. So where the heck did the money go??. Why should Martin get credit for bringing a balanced budget when he had all that GST money to clear off the debt with? All he did was succeed in completely screwing everyone in the country. ( and how bout that all canadian company? CSL and his best friends in the desmarais family. and his involvment with maurice stong and money from Sudaam's regime for his aberta based co.? ) Cronyism, patronage, scandles. doesn't matter what brush you want to paint it with. Corruption exists everywhere and it does not prejudice against any political party as we have come to see so many times in the past. BUT? Why worry when you are the gov't . you will have collective amnesia of the people on your side?. I have come to the conclusion that Canada is doomed to bring accountability and ethics to gov't because the people will bitch, crab, and complain but do nothing about it. They need to form organizations in their constituencies to hold their elected officials accountable for everything that happens.

Even in defeat, the big winner Monday night was the Liberal Party. You might call it a rebirth -out with the old and in with the new.

It's a no brainer that Mr. Clean, I mean Frank McKenna is the obvious choose to led the party.

Some MP will go down in history as the member who stepped aside giving Mr. McKenna an opportunity to get elected.

A dream come true having our candidate become the next Prime Minister...

Thank you for the change in the television debate format. I had given up watching them in disgust as the constant interruptions and shouting over each other prevented anything substantive from being communicated. The debates this time allowed us to hear what the leaders had to say for themselves. I would suggest two changes. Let each leader have three minutes for opening remarks--surely most adults have an attention span that long. High school debaters certainly do. And let's hear from the Green Party leader; the party fields candidates in all 308 ridings, unlike the Bloc, and even without the debates garnered 5% of the national vote (half that of the Bloc).

I really want to give my feedback, but fear that you won't listen or give a damn. Like so many people I know, I've stopped watching CBC news, except sporadically, because of your major shift to the right, incl. your manipulation and deceptiveness regarding foreign policy, increasing U.S. control over our country (in the name of "security"), and dishonest journalism during the election campaign, esp. the fact that you virtually gave the Harper tories a free (and unchallenged) ride, thereby deceiving the Canadian public about his fascist, Bush-style agenda of corporate control and world domination.

We have noticed that under Rabinovitch's control, journalistic integrity has been increasingly eroded. We are now force-fed a diet of mostly right-wing commentary, with objectionable people like Andrew Coyne from the extremist National Post. We're tired of being jerked around, while our country is being given away to financial elitists here and south of the border.

More and more people are commenting about the corporate-controlled media, and CBC's part in this trend. And with Harper's win, we expect more of this 1984 treatment, now that we're living in the 51st state.

How disgusting, esp. from the CBC.

Count me out, unless you start behaving ethically,
Mona Joyce, Toronto

I am a 75 year old voter and have seen many elections come and go. The coverage I would like to see is interviewers getting real explainations of charges candidates have made one against the other. Make the candidate accountable for charges he has made. If he skirts the question ask it again in the same way and even a third time in the same way so that his evasiveness reveals his dishonesty.

I thought the CBC election coverage last night was excellent. I thought the media coverage of the election campaing itself was dismal. Nobody challenged the candidates on the big issues and the role of this country in the world at large. Where were the debates on immigration, foreign policy, military and defense and so on? I felt like I was witnessing a very expensive and long municipal campaign. with a bunch of school kids trading barbs and insults over mundane and dated arguments.

I am 25 years old and this is the first federal elections in which I participated. I found that the CBC website provided the most in-depth analysis and commentary of the events most pertinent to the election campaign. While I visited the site early December out of mere curiosity, I was instantly hooked on and visited daily to see what was new. From reading the Election Round Table newly updates, to checking out the Blog Report (and the links which caught my attention), I felt like I was connecting to other Canadians and understanding their concerns and their wishes for the direction of our proud country. I found the site very easy to navigate and easy on the eyes.

After having fully exhausted this site, I visited the CTV website and was not as pleased. I felt it was less personal, like it didn't talk *to* me as much as it talked *at* me.

I don't always agree with the views of the journalists at CBC, and I found that in the "Your Turn" with Jack Layton, Peter Mansbridge was somewhat rude and demeaning, but maybe that's because I support the NDP. Regardless, I felt that I was best informed by the CBC and that it revived in me a sense of belonging to this country and a drive to play my part.

Thank-you, CBC!

Your coverage was meaningful, timely, well executed and provided us with information we needed to break through the crap we are bombarded with through spin ads and the debates.

Your Turn should replace the debate. Your Turn showed the intelligence of Canadians in getting to the questions we really do care about and well hosted by Peter Mansbridge in getting the politican to answer the question.

Canadians are very good at figuring out the differences between candidates but Reality Checks provided us with the research to cut through the deceptions.

Excellent job, you should be very proud.

As journalism goes, so goes our democracy, but the recent changes to CBC News won't really help much to overcome the democratic deficit. The CBC News, in order to fulfill its public-interest mandate for this century, must journalistically differentiate itself from the commercial, for-profit, corporate influenced news media industry. One way to make more room for local news would be to remove all the ads. If your going to change the 'look and sound' of CBC News, you will have to cut the advertising clutter from all news programming, current and public affairs programs, and documentary shows. This one change would make CBC unique in the present hyper-commericialized media environment.

Surely there is enough ad revenue from sports programming to subsidize a commercial-free, public interest news service? And if that is still not enough, perhaps it is time that the CBC 'lockout' the new conservative minority government from any coverage until proper levels of funding are restored to the CBC.

Despite all of the arm stretching to reach their backs, the media failed Canadians once again. If democracy is truly about addressing the issues and the media giving equivalency in voice, then as much time given to listening to the "Big 4" debate on television would have been dedicated to assessing other options. Why the big silence on the facts of this election: that the public remains disillusioned with politicians? Why not public assessment of real options? Why did it take until the evening before the election to interview an 18-year old independent candidate from Calgary? Why the silence on the first election with 80 plus independent candidates?

All Canadians have relevance in our country. All options for them have as much importance. Our media remains the voice of big partisans, not democracy, despite what the "Chief" may say.